a 'mooh' point

clearly an IBM drone

IBM is now fighting from the trenches

After the BRM it seems to be more the rule than the exception to be denied "speech" on the blogs of the front-runners of the IBM bloggers. First it happened to me on Robs blog (where I commented on his patronizing tone towards a Czech delegate at the BRM and now it happened to me on Bob Sutors blog as well. Actually I thought it was just my point of view that was really stupid (so that Bob was essentially doing me a favour in not approving my comment), but today in the newsgroup comp.os.linux.advocacy I heard that Bob had completely disabled comments to this particular post and a post routing more of the, ahem, "balanced" views of the ODF Alliance. It seems to me that IBM has given up debating the issues at hand and are now using their blogs as mere portals with no user-interaction ... at least not interaction of the people opposing their views.

Well, to the amusement of you all - here is what I wrote:

Hi Bob,

I am a bit confused to why the lawyers of the Software Freedom Law Center has not compared the OSP of Microsoft to IBMs Interoperability Specifications Pledge at http://www-03.ibm.com/linux/opensource/isplist.shtml .

They seem to focus on two sentences from the OSP, but similar ones are present in IBMs ISP:

New versions of previously covered specifications will be separately considered for addition to the list.

IBM will evaluate new versions or additional specifications for inclusion based on their consistency with the objectives of this pledge which is to support widespread adoption of open specifications that enable software interoperability for our customers, and may, from time to time, make additional pledges.

The OSP does not apply to any work that you do beyond the scope of the covered specification(s).

IBM irrevocably covenants to you that it will not assert any Necessary Claims against you for your making, using, importing, selling, or offering for sale  Covered Implementations [...]. Covered Implementations" are those specific portions of a product (hardware, software, services or combinations thereof) that implement and comply with a Covered Specification and are included in a fully compliant implementation of that Covered Specification.

By decuction, shouldn't OSS-developers avoid ODF too?

I won't repeat Bobs response to me, since it was in a private email, but Bob, please feel free to comment here.



Comments (4) -

It's probably worth mentioning that Arnaud Le Hors also has turned on his "troll detection radar" in his blog, wich basically means "if you don't agree with me you are a troll so don't bother posting".

I don't see how the more serious side of IBM (chips, mainframes, and databases) can tolerate these Lotus clowns.  They really are not doing their company proud by going for the short-term win at the cost of long-term credibility.  Even if ODF is the sole ISO document standard, and governments start mandating it, it won't be long before Microsoft has the same ability to work with ODF that Symphony has and the competitive advantage becomes moot.  In the mean time, the people who actually make decisions (which doesn't always overlap with the ABM slashdot crowd) will experience firsthand the less than fully baked nature of ISO ODF.

Arnaud has indeed also blocked my answer on his blog as well. I just asked him what in my post he thought was in correct and if he wanted me to prove what I said. I guess in IBM land that constitutes a reason for moderation.

So Rob, Bob and Arnaud from IBM blogging on OOXML seem to have troubles with opinion that conflicts their own policy and remove/block content they don't like. It seems Micrsoft bloggers have a much less stict moderation policy and are more willing to discuss with opposite minds.

You have to admit that DIS29500 has been one of the more incredible bits of comedy to come out of Redmond. In fact it's been downright hilarious from the start. Which has nothing to do with it's suitability as a document format, just with the reaction to it, and Microsoft's reaction to the reaction, and so on ad nauseum.

Comments are closed